Communism

[PLC1]

Communism has been the scourge of the world - of all the natural and man-made disasters to afflict mankind, nothing else even comes close. The Devil himself, if he exists, is a rank amateur in the creation of pure refined evil compared to the communists.

Aren't you glad that Communism has died out everywhere except, perhaps on the Island of Cuba? Soon the Castro brothers will die, and Communism will be a thing of the past there, too.

 

[Apathy]

Communism has been the scourge of the world - of all the natural and man-made disasters to afflict mankind, nothing else even comes close. The Devil himself, if he exists, is a rank amateur in the creation of pure refined evil compared to the communists.

This thread has been an epic disapointment no real arguments have been made. I can call anything evil so this post is of no value maybe if you would have been able to explain why it is evil.... Mix it up every once and a while try to put something of substance in with your rhetoric.

 

[Apathy]

Aren't you glad that Communism has died out everywhere except, perhaps on the Island of Cuba? Soon the Castro brothers will die, and Communism will be a thing of the past there, too.

I would argue that Cuba is not a communist state.

 

[BigRob]

Why is communism bad?

Without specifying which form of communism you are exactly discussing, you will never get a real answer to your question... that said, I will attempt to broadly address why I feel that Communism is in fact "bad."

1) Value is subjective, not objective.. therefore, without a valuation system in place, like prices, true economic valuation is not possible.

2) If there is no incentive for profit within a system, there is no incentive to make that system more efficient.

3) You might argue that some communists want to pay people based on what they produce, but I would argue, as I mentioned, that would be impossible because there would be no real way to ascribe economic valuation.

4) Communism will never eliminate "ownership". Be it a committee or governing board, or a manager, someone is going to have control over resources that they can use to get favors etc.

5) Ultimately, the theory of Communism might sound fine, but putting it in practice is an attempt to deny human nature, and always runs into problems.

 

[steveox]

Oh those good ol days of the cold war remember?

 

[GenSeneca]

Why is communism bad?

Are we talking about Communism as laid out by Marx? Because that had multiple stages of "Communism". First is the growth of the state in order to destroy private property rights, then the dismantaling of the state to bring about Utopian Socialism.

But to answer your question, Communism is bad because it is immoral. Using the power of the state to violate individual rights (primarily the elimination of private property) is an act of immorality.

The only way Communism, in the Utopian Socialist sense of the word, could ever work is by way of volition. People have to voluntarily agree to participate in the system and be allowed to remove themselves from the system if they so choose.

 

[Apathy]

1)Are we talking about Communism as laid out by Marx? Because that had multiple stages of "Communism". First is the growth of the state in order to destroy private property rights, then the dismantaling of the state to bring about Utopian Socialism.

2)But to answer your question, Communism is bad because it is immoral. Using the power of the state to violate individual rights (primarily the elimination of private property) is an act of immorality.

3)The only way Communism, in the Utopian Socialist sense of the word, could ever work is by way of volition. People have to voluntarily agree to participate in the system and be allowed to remove themselves from the system if they so choose.

1)The bolded is the only communism there is and a communist would argue that they just have a different view on property right. Communist believe current usage dictates ownership. The other form I give a different name to, totalitarianism.

2) That's cool but I dont call a system like that a communist one.

3) I dont think anyone would argue otherwise.

 

[Apathy]

1a)Without specifying which form of communism you are exactly discussing, you will never get a real answer to your question... that said, I will attempt to broadly address why I feel that Communism is in fact "bad."

1b) Value is subjective, not objective.. therefore, without a valuation system in place, like prices, true economic valuation is not possible.

2) If there is no incentive for profit within a system, there is no incentive to make that system more efficient.

3) You might argue that some communists want to pay people based on what they produce, but I would argue, as I mentioned, that would be impossible because there would be no real way to ascribe economic valuation.

4) Communism will never eliminate "ownership". Be it a committee or governing board, or a manager, someone is going to have control over resources that they can use to get favors etc.

5) Ultimately, the theory of Communism might sound fine, but putting it in practice is an attempt to deny human nature, and always runs into problems.

1a) There is only one form of communism. (see: response to Gen)

1b) Take note Gipper & Rick an actual criticism instead of rhetoric... I agree Rob and its one of the reasons I disapprove of communism.

2) Increased quality of life for all would be a big motivator.

3) No it would be based on hours of production.

4) Communism never wanted to eliminate ownership they simply want to bring about a different understanding of it.

5) This is all theoretical Big Rob practical application has nothing to do with it.

 

[GenSeneca]

The bolded is the only communism there is...

I still don't understand which you are wanting to discuss... The totalitarian state that absorbs and abolishes all rights to clear the path for Utopian Socialism or Utopian Socialism. If we are talking about Marxian view on the subject, then the progression is as follows - Capitalism=>Communism=>Utopian Socialism.

Communism was a theoretical means to an end, Utopian Socialism being the end, Communism was not envisioned as a permanent form of government.

 

[GenSeneca]

2) That's cool but I dont call a system like that a communist one.

If not a Communist system, what exactly would you call a system charged with the duty of confiscating all private wealth and property in order to redistribute the wealth and transfer ownersip "rights" of the property to the public?

According to Marx, that is the role of a Communist government and that makes Communism immoral.

 

[Apathy]

If not a Communist system, what exactly would you call a system charged with the duty of confiscating all private wealth and property in order to redistribute the wealth and transfer ownersip "rights" of the property to the public?

According to Marx, that is the role of a Communist government and that makes Communism immoral.

Again Gen it is a statist system... That system isnt about giving all property rights to the public its about giving power to the guy at the head. The closest thing to communism this world has seen wasnt a state at all it was the Anarchist society in Catalonia.

 

[Apathy]

I still don't understand which you are wanting to discuss... The totalitarian state that absorbs and abolishes all rights to clear the path for Utopian Socialism or Utopian Socialism. If we are talking about Marxian view on the subject, then the progression is as follows - Capitalism=>Communism=>Utopian Socialism.

Communism was a theoretical means to an end, Utopian Socialism being the end, Communism was not envisioned as a permanent form of government.

Your mistake is in assuming communism is a form of government, true communism abolishes the government all together.

If it is true that the purpose of a communist [sic] state were to make way for utopian socialism why did the Soviets not step aside?

 

[BigRob]

1a) There is only one form of communism. (see: response to Gen)

1b) Take note Gipper & Rick an actual criticism instead of rhetoric... I agree Rob and its one of the reasons I disapprove of communism.

2) Increased quality of life for all would be a big motivator.

Increased quality of life compared to what though? And isn't that all subjective as well?

I may have a great life if the airplane were never invented, but that does not mean its creation, and the economic opportunities that arose from it, have not made my quality of life better...but would that alone be incentive for me to attempt to develop the airplane?

3) No it would be based on hours of production.

Who would value what those hours are worth?

4) Communism never wanted to eliminate ownership they simply want to bring about a different understanding of it.

What would the understanding of "ownership" be under a communist system?

5) This is all theoretical Big Rob practical application has nothing to do with it.

Ok, I will attempt to keep my comments along such lines.

 

[Apathy]

1)Increased quality of life compared to what though? And isn't that all subjective as well?

2)I may have a great life if the airplane were never invented, but that does not mean its creation, and the economic opportunities that arose from it, have not made my quality of life better...but would that alone be incentive for me to attempt to develop the airplane?



3)Who would value what those hours are worth?



4)What would the understanding of "ownership" be under a communist system?



Ok, I will attempt to keep my comments along such lines.

1) Isnt everything subjective?

2) Maybe you needed to fly somewhere so you made an airplane... Necessity is the mother of invention.

3)Say I spend two hrs making a making a chair then it would cost someone two production to acquire the chair.

4)Current usage would dictate property laws in nearly all situations.

 

[BigRob]

1) Isnt everything subjective

Ultimately, probably so.

2) Maybe you needed to fly somewhere so you made an airplane... Necessity is the mother of invention.

But that is just it.. I would never "need" to fly anywhere, I could have a perfectly happy life taking a car, or horse, or train, or ship. The only thing that would necessitate my creating an airplane is my innate greed to get there more quickly and more efficiently.

3)Say I spend two hrs making a making a chair then it would cost someone two production to acquire the chair.

That is absurd, if all "production hours" are equal, then why wouldn't I just spend fifty hours on a chair that should only take two, and therefore get more for less? Just because I spent 50 hours making something does not mean it has a value of 50 hours to anyone else... nor should it.

4)Current usage would dictate property laws in nearly all situations.

So whoever is using something would own it?